Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive385

User:Urabura reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: blocked)
Page: and three other:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:53, 17 February 2019
 * 2) 19:37, 20 February 2019
 * 3) 20:18, 20 February 2019
 * 4) 20:33, 20 February 2019
 * 5) 21:00, 20 February 2019

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles. The user had other warnings in user talk page (also for edit-warring), warnings did not help. The user deletes the warnings during the course of the dispute and copy/paste warning from own talk page to other user talk page. A similar behavior is in Polish Wikipedia - few edit-wars in period of January-February 2019: or aven in German Wikipedia. This user remove sources also in English Wikipedia, example:. Unreformable user, unable to adapt in Wikipedia project (removes sources, creates edit-wars, introduces controversial changes in more than one Wikipedia project). Four edit-wars in short time in English Wikipedia (excluding edit-wars in Polish Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, total 10 multiwiki edit-wars), a blockade should be considered for an indefinite period. Subtropical -man ( ✉  | en-2 ) 21:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Nihlus (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 2)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 3)  "/* Contestant progress */"
 * 4)  "/* Contestant progress */ No, its based on points"
 * 5)  "/* Contestant progress */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Trinity and Monet placement */ Replying to Endowe (reply-link)"

Continue to insert their version of the page despite being reverted by multiple users. Clear consensus is forming on the talk page as well. Nihlus 01:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2604:6000:D786:6C00:BC3D:8133:D0E8:1E7E reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Page semiprotected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Your reaction is without merit because you did not even read what I wrote, specifically about his Chinese name."
 * 2)  "You're warring without reading what I wrote. So there cannot be a consensus."
 * 3)  "My edits to include his Chinese name have absolutely nothing to do with his "nationality"! So learn to read, stop replying with irrelevant nonsense, and stop changing the edit!"
 * 4)  "Chinese name is shown at 0:04 of the video link."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shin Lim. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

FWIW, the article-in-question, as been semi-protected for 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Gablesfsbo reported by User:MarnetteD (Result:24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While there is conflicting info about Hepburn's birth name Gablesfsbo continues to remove sourced info and replace it with unsourced WP:SPECULATION. Time was given for them to respond on the talk page but the chose to revert more than one editor instead. Please note their edits tended to make other cosmetic changes so they aren't simple reverts but, again, they removed sourced info. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:MrX (Result: damn, blocked as well! three closes with just one block...)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page.  NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk)  YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT.  THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE.  STOP VANDALIZING."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk)  STOP VANDALISING.  THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION.  SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk)  the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus.  there is no reason to not label it NC."
 * 5)  "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* SPLC */"


 * Comments:

see below

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page.  NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk)  YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT.  THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE.  STOP VANDALIZING."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk)  STOP VANDALISING.  THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION.  SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk)  the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus.  there is no reason to not label it NC."
 * 5)  "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I cited a UNITED STATES COURT decision upholding my position. You have cited nothing. You cannot say there is consensus. A duly authorized court has already rejected this, and it's just factually wrong at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Irrelevant and 2. No you didn't, because no such court decision exists. Try reading sources that aren't lying to you for ideological purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I absolutely cited such a source. This is not ideological bias.  This is a court decision wherein SPLC paid out $3m for false statements.  They are not a reliable source.  There is literally a court who reviewed the evidence and rejected your position.  I cited the links in the relevant discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear POV-warrior uninterested in discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User is up to seven reverts now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, language contained in the edit Posters citing the SPLC on false designations are NOT protected under any safe harbor laws, and may be sued individually for defamation. is tantamount to inserting a legal threat into Wikipedia policy pages, which I'm going to treat as simple vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * not vandalism. Just a fact.  Under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, individuals are responsible for their own posts on public sites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "stop vandalising a united states court ruling", in reference to a ruling which doesn't appear to exist at all, means that Wikipedia editors have an alarming amount of power. I had no idea that Wikipedia's internal guidelines were legally binding! Incidentally, do we have a policy page about Citizens United? Asking for a friend. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/06/20/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4m-to-resolve-defamation-case/?slreturn=20190121221850 yeah, it's real.  Here's SPLC themselves admitting it: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by  4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:1.144.105.77 reported by User:Brainiac245 (Result:Malformed )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:1.144.104.73 reported by User:Brainiac245 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.80.44 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884575513 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884570494 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884564727 by Vsmith (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ica stones. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * This bit of immaturity to the point of solipsism was what caught my attention. That kind of insanity is simply not compatible with the project.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: also blocked!)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884512490 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884512103 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism.  There's literally a US court case showing the position that SPLC is reliable is false.  This MUST be at least NC."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884510470 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 884509995 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 884509472 by DemocraticLuntz (talk)  stop vandalising a united states court ruling"
 * 6)  "fixed language re SPLC"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 884508772 by DemocraticLuntz (talk) vandalism, see talk page"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 884508304 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism, see talk page.   I labeled this NC, you are saying there is consensus when a US court has objectively rejected your position."
 * 9)  "fixed NC tag"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page.  NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk)  YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT.  THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE.  STOP VANDALIZING."
 * 12)  "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk)  STOP VANDALISING.  THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION.  SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk)  the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus.  there is no reason to not label it NC."
 * 14)  "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"
 * 15)  "SPLC is has been ruled in court to be unreliable"
 * 1)  "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"
 * 2)  "SPLC is has been ruled in court to be unreliable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * by Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnbod reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Various

Diffs of the user's reverts: There are other, less significant edits made on that page too, such as the continued reversion to Marseilles, which I haven't included but which technically should also be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (to which the user responded by calling me a "trollish editor", attempting to justify the abusive use of rollback by calling be a troll again).

Comments:


 * A talk page discussion was started, and is continuing, and other editors have had a look. That's what we want to do - AN3 blocks are generally for people who just don't "get it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * okay, so a bright line violation of 3RR is acceptable here. Then I shall restore the citations to the format that is considered proper, professional and robust against linkrot.  Thanks to all the admins for avoiding this one by the way, it couldn't be a clearer violation, deliberately conducted with no sign of any contrition.   Nobody has "got" anything here except that ownership rules apply.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, did break the letter of 3RR. However, since he's not edit-warring now, a block would be plain and simple punishment. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, so the fact he's done the same earlier today (and reverted a host of other edits) here on another article has indicated that he's "got it"? And of course edit warring to keep one's preferred version and having admins back that position up, as per this closure, is really very healthy?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it doesn't rise to the level of a block at this time, which would only happen if I could not guarantee anyone could fix either Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene or Master MZ without conflicting between the pair of you reverting each other. I'm not going to block somebody just because they're annoying you and you don't like them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't give two shits about the user, but I do care that bright line 3RR violations are being enabled by admins. And that persistent ownership, personal attacks and abuse of rollback are similarly being ignored.  This is nothing personal, for me, just professional values of main page appearances.  This now means he owns all his own articles and no-one can do anything to improve them as this noticeboard sanctioned the version he edit warred and violated 3RR to maintain.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think there's a more long-term problem with a user removing well-formatted citations and introducing link rot, you need to go to WP:ANI and state your case. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just saying that it does not rise to the level of a block right now. If there is a systemic problem here, then a topic ban is more likely to the be the outcome of an ANI discussion rather than a block. If I stated my opinion on the issue, and then handed out a block, it would be bad. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are ignoring it, you're enabling a user to violate 3RR to keep their preferred version of an article. And the same user has simply moved onto the next article to conduct the same behaviour.  And you're ignoring it.  You can't even be be bothered to indicate that the 3RR was actually a violation and warn the user in question.  That's textbook "ignoring".  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have lobbed my 2c into the talk page discussion, agreeing with you. That pretty much means I'm now WP:INVOLVED as I've taken a side in the debate, so I'm going to have to punt this to ANI. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Though this complaint was closed as Stale in lieu of blocking, in my view the only other option would have been to block both parties for edit warring. Consider the spelling of Marseille. Here is what happened to Marseille(s) beginning with TRM's edit of 10:02 on 21 February:


 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:203.110.242.22 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I previously removed content that was added by a user who is now banned for their disruptive editing to this same page. Now an IP editor from a shared IP address is reinserting that unsourced information, which includes putting in other errors (such as breaking the "education" tag in the infobox). Please help. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and article semi-protected. Probably a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked for 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clarification of her positions."
 * 2)  "Ocasio Cortes is a Democratic Socialist.  Also, by her own repeated admissions she is a socialist and supports a socialist agenda.  Even the cites in this article describe the platform as socialist.  Stating that she advocates for a socialist platform is accurate."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Straightforward 1RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I want to note I'm having an ongoing discussion with this new editor about this on my talk page and on their talk page right now here and they sort of self-reverted here. My hope is that the editor will self-correct as a result of this discussion and no further action will be necessary to prevent future violations. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI: left a note on my talk page saying I am not going to make more reverts or edits or whatever to the Wikipedia article at this time. I have encouraged them to join the discussion here, which I am now bowing out of. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not remotely a self-revert and it contains arguably-BLP-violating comparisons to a Venezuelan dictator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, the editor is not new and has a remarkably large number of warnings on their talk page. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh I dropped the AP2 banner on this editor's talkpage earlier in the hope that they would stop reverting, but it clearly didn't work. Blocked for 48h. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikiemirati reported by User:شرعب السلام (Result: No action due to self-reverts)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884531762 by شرعب السلام (talk) Again, this is WP:SYNTH. Al Qaeda linked =/= Al Qaeda. Want to list coalition as allied to Houthis and Iran as well since source says US weapons ended up with them?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884531436 by شرعب السلام (talk) rv WP:SYNTH, show me sources which state Abu Al Abbas is Al Qaeda. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. WP:ONUS"
 * 3)  "According to source, coalition supports "Abu Al Abbas brigade",  not "Al Qaeda" or "ISIL". Brigade is sourced to be "Al-Qaeda linked", not Al Qaeda."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)‎. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User is not willing to have disscusion in the talk page. They like reverting and engaging in an edit war. This behaviour should not be tolerated in wikipedia. Anyway Abu Al-Abas is considered by the US to be Al-Qeada member and Al-qeada-linked in that context does actually mean Al-Qaeda. It is amazing how this user is just not wanting to have disscuion. SharabSalam (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that the page is protected with 1RR, I have made a contribution, was reverted, then reverted myself only to be reverted again by SharabSalam. I have noticed I reverted twice after that hence self-reverted (reverted in a spur of the moment), but found out I am reported when clearly the user reporting me has reverted twice before I did in a protected page. Reporting user has clearly violated 1RR. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , While I didn't know this page is protected with one revert you knew that and kept engaging in an edit war trying to drag me into an edit war. You clearly don't want to open a discussion but to impose your POV regardless of who would disagree. Wikipedia should not tolerate this behaviour and you should be senctioned for doing that. Even if you self-reverted yourself after I have reported you. You should learn not to disrespect others while asking you politely to come to discuss this before editing. You clearly think you have a superior point of view while ignoring the chances that your  point of view could be wrong. I believe your behaviour should be senctioned for this disturbing edits. Also could you please ping me when you reply I can't put this page in my watchlist because it's very  active. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained my edit, but you reverted me twice. I reverted twice as well but was sensible enough to self revert. I have even advised you to do the same on my talk page. I find your accusations of having me sanctions is not in consistent with wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith and is quite inappropriate. You opening this notice board almost immediately is also not done in good faith. I don't recall disrespecting you at all, I don't know where you got that notion but if I made you feel that way then I apologize. Your actions however, are not done in good faith and are clearly to have me sanctioned/banned/off the article for having a different point of view. You are an experienced editor and you know the revert rules and discretionary sanctions. Your actions should be scrutinized. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also apologize if I understood your actions wrong but correct me if I am wrong you deleted a sourced information and you explained your edits, I didn't agree with your explanation and I reverted you calling you to start a discussion. you refused that and reverted me and started a discussion using the edit summary as a talk page (question: was that trying to drag me into an edit war discussion?) (read WP:REVTALK) I didn't know that the page was protected never got notified except now. You reverted my edit again and used the edit summary as a discussion I viewed that as you are trying to drag me into an edit war and that you refused to listen to me because you think your POV is true regardless of me. I saw this behaviour so disturbing and I went to report you to admins I think this is extremely fair admins can see the edit war that happened and judge by themselves. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted a highly controversial information which I explained as WP:SYNTH. You reverted me, twice and hence broke 1RR. You reverted three other edits of mine which you did not contest WP:TWABUSE. You are a regular editor of that page, and I have warned you on my talk page, and there is a clear big banner of 1RR and you know it is protected. Why would I drag you into an edit war? This makes no sense. You opened this notice. You're using WP:POV railroad right now which is not the venue of this board. You are free to open an ANI if you think I am POV pushing. Your actions are clearly in bad faith to eliminate me from editing an article. Admins here should know you broke 1RR. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was only warned after I broke the 1R rule and you knew the rule and broke the 1RR. All of your three edits were wrong and I wanted you to start a discussion that's why I reverted your edit in the first time. You started the discussion in the edit summary!! while reverting me!!. Yes that's an act that I would consider refusing to open a discussion, an illusion of having a superior point of view and a disturbing behaviour that should be taken serious and reported to admins!. Abu Al-Abas is the same as Al-Qaeda the name doesn't matter when his group is part of Al-Qaeda groups RSs say that and plus I am from Taiz I know that which made me also be sure that your edits are wrong. Hadi-led government? Most sources say Hadi government why changing that? That should also be discussed. But you refused having a discussion!! You think your POV is true that's it end of story! That's how your actions can only be interpreted!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You could've easily started a discussion if you wanted since you started the edit war and the onus of inclusion of controversial information was on you as per WP:ONUS, but you opened this notice against me to discredit me entirely and "sanction" me as you mention. You broke the spirit of the page protection by reverting me continuously instead of discussing your reverts, not me, and broke 1RR in the process. I self reverted myself, how am I pushing my POV?? I am done with this discussion, admins can judge by themselves and do whatever they want. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I open a discussion when it's you who changed the stable version? --SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the page is protected WP:1RR. You violated 1RR. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a protection and you knew that. Also thats not an inclusion!! That's supported by reliable sources. There is no Al-Qaeda in Taiz other than Abu Al-Abass. These are like synonymous!reliable sources switch using them most of the time. Sometimes Alqeada sometimes Abu Al-Abas this discussion would have been in the talk page if you werent just pushing a POV and ignoring me while calling  you to the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, I warned you and advised you to self revert. You proceeded with this notice instead. This discussion could've been in the talk page, I agree. But you opened this notice board to get me "sanctioned" instead of sticking to 1RR and opening a discussion. Your actions should be scrutinized. You violated 1RR. I not going to respond anymore I'm done with this discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The version of the article is now as it was when it was stable. I can't revert what you have self-reverted because that would be a third revert(reverting yourself revert). Again the version of the article is now as it was when it was stable.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If the rules of 1RR were applied you would have stopped when I reverted you. You have violated 1RR spirit and even proceeded to open a notice against me, that's why I want your behavior to be scrutinized by an admin. It's not assuming good faith to go around reporting users for violations specially when you have made a violation in a protected page, as well as calling me POV pushing among other things. This behavior must stop. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have said that I wasnt aware that the article is under 1RR. You are the one who removed sourced informations and when I reverted you, YOU should have not revert me again. thats why I reported you. You were dragging me into an edit war and I was aware of 3RR I didnt want to make 3 reverts and I didnt know the article was under 1R rule. I would have reported you before I did the second revert because of edit warring and refusing to disscuss in the talk page. SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have warned you, yet you opened this notice. You did not discuss your revert, if you did I would have joined the discussion. I didn't violate the 3RR either. Optional methods for reaching consensus is not a policy, violating 1RR in a controversial article is. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I only knew that the article is under is under 1RR when you warned me and that was after i opened the notice. You refused to listen and reverted me 2 times and I opened the notice. This notice is because you behaved like an edit warrior. refusing to listen and using the talk page is an edit warring. Again if I knew there was a 1RR I would have reported you before the second revert because you are removing sourced information and refusing to disscuss. Nothing I can do in this case except reporting you as you are clearly doing an act that a lot would consider pushing a POV--SharabSalam (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. When did I "refuse to discuss"? You failed to initiate a discussion and opened this notice instead to get me "sanctioned" and off the article. The page is protected by WP:1RR for a reason. I have pointed out a controversial edit in the article, you failed to counter it by not even opening a discussion in the talk page, but by taking this into a notice board to get me "sanctioned". If you want to include controversial material by adding a couple of countries as allies to Al Qaeda the onus is on you to get consensus. Look at your own behavior before you call out others. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Result: No action due to self-reverts. Both parties broke WP:1RR but then both of them self-reverted, which is often accepted in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:XKnuckLez reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  After report filed.
 * 2)  "Breadsticks is a butthurt person who is stalking my edits. Please stop these personal attacks. I feel threatened."
 * 3)  "Don’t revert you heartless person"
 * 1)  "Don’t revert you heartless person"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Paul Rodgers. (Using Twinkle"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:178.109.213.211. (Using Twinkle"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Paul Rodgers. (Using Twinkle"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Administrators, please look into this. I am being targeted by flighttime from legitimate edits. Thank you.


 * for personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:VwM.Mwv reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * First edits
 * 21 Feb. The edit includes adding material about reparations, an image of Adolf Eichmann, and two short cites lifted from another article that don't correspond with any long citations.


 * Reverts
 * 21:25, 21 Feb, restored reparations and short cites.
 * 21:40, 21 Feb, restored image and short cites.
 * 21:56, 21 Feb, restored image.
 * 16:53, 23 Feb, restored short cites.
 * 19:31, 23 Feb, restored image and short cites.
 * 20:04, 23 Feb, added different image of Eichmann and restored short cites.


 * Warnings
 * 21 Feb
 * 20:01, 23 Feb

Admin action would be appreciated here. VwM.Mwv arrived at The Holocaust on 21 February. He is repeatedly reverting (although not 3RR), at first adding material that violated an Arab-Israeli topic ban he was under (see first discussion under "warnings" above), and adding inappropriate sources and an image of Adolf Eichmann in a section too crowded for it. SarahSV (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments

I made two reverts (and one of them was only partial) to that article today. And I explicitly stated in the edit summaries and on the talk page that I wouldn't mind if another editor restored an older version pending talk page consensus. That's not edit warring. I know this because I admitted & apologized when I engaged in actual edit warring earlier. M  .   M  20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, everything you mentioned is being discussed at the talk page in a discussion that I initiated earlier today (I haven't edited the article at all since then). And you're admitting that I didn't violate the 3RR. So can you please tell me what excactly you're reporting me for, and what "action" you want to be taken? M  .   M  21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, a discussion you initiated at 19:35, 23 February before continuing to revert. SarahSV (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. When did I continue to revert (unless you're counting the link that I accidentally removed & restored per talk page request)? M   .   M  21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you still haven't told me what you're reporting me for. This page is specifically for edit warring, and you explicitly stated that I did not violate the 3RR. M   .   M  21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you're reporting me for (something?) on a page about edit warring, yet you write in your report that I didn't violate the 3RR. If you don't give me some sort of explanation soon, I'm gonna ask if it's okay to remove this whole report. It just seems like one big paradox.  M   .   M  21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI,, I'm uninvolved in this dispute, but you may want to read the Wikipedia guidelines for edit warring (the first wikilink on this page), which states in the opening lead: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
 * Also, you clearly reverted after the discussion started on the talk page (talk page discussion started by you here, and then 30 minutes later, ignoring the responses while continuing to edit war by reinserting a picture into a disputed section here). Given your edit summary ("Ok, this is a bit of a silly discussion but anyway I found a smaller picture. (The sources are from the Adolf Eichmann article, feel free to remove them if there's a problem.)"), your question above ("When did I continue to revert (unless you're counting the link that I accidentally removed & restored per talk page request)?") seems disingenuous since you were aware you were adding a picture to the same section after objections.
 * I think you may want to rethink your statements here and work towards being more collaborative in the future. Please take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * . VwM.Mwv was indubitably edit warring, first going right up to 3 reverts in quick succession, then waiting a couple of days and then reverting several times more. It seems from the block log that there may be more problems affecting the user, so I have pinged a couple of relevant admins to their talkpage. I don't have time to make an in-depth review myself, unfortunately. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

Anonymous multi-IP user reported by User:C. A. Russell (Result: Protected 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: my MOSTENSE correction ("is" to "was"), also intro paragraph copyedit to become a "concise overview" of the paragraphs that follow

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) first revert to intro structure
 * 2) second revert to intro structure


 * 1) first MOSTENSE revert
 * 2) second MOSTENSE revert (same edit as first intro revert)
 * 3) third MOSTENSE revert (same edit as second intro revert)


 * 1) reverting another user's mention of .NET Core in the hatnote

Comments:

NB: This is a report of edit warring before it gets to 3RR; not a report of a 3RR violation.

There are two three IPs I've encountered, both originating from Iran, and which have made edits with a consistent theme reverting some changes of mine, and of at least one other user, to the Microsoft .NET strategy article. Yesterday, this spilled over elsewhere, where the editor (I'm assuming) clicked through to follow my contributions to another article, and behaved similarly. (There is more coverage at User talk:Anthony Appleyard.)

I'm seeking a third party to look into these issues. Please also pay close attention to the actual content of the edits, the issue in dispute, and polarity. Many of the edit summaries from this user are misleading or using some form of misdirection. For example, the user cites MOS:TENSE, MOS:COMPNOW for his or her reverts, while actual scrutiny of the reverts reveals that the changes the user wants are what those guidelines explicitly call out as incorrect; the user injects some extra words into the article and in a subsequent edit appeals for a compromise, mentioning wordiness, when in fact the words being removed are ones that the previous editor added. In another edit, the user's edit summary labels his or her changes as reverting vandalism, when in fact the changes being reverted (not mine) were changing the generic wording of a hatnote to something more specific.

-- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that the 37.25 IPs are the same person but 5.78 is about 250 miles away. Not saying they couldn't be the same person, just that geolocation alone isn't enough to say they are.
 * If they are the same person, then a couple of range blocks might not solve this. At this point, I'm just going to lock the page as being under a content dispute.  If they do not engage on the talk page during that time, or they say one thing but do another, then we'll have something actionable.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Maybe if you look at the subject matter, the result of your work would be more objective. Manuals of Style are not firm laws. They are rough guidelines. But it is non-neutral to say something is a strategy when it no longer is. And why is this person so hostile? His first attempt in communication is calling me a "personal grudge". What if he is wrong? If you do not care for the WP:NPA policy, don't you at least care for the integrity of Wikipedia? Or... what do you care for here anyway? 37.254.85.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you bothered reading what people said, you'd make less foolish assumptions. I never said anything about the MoS.  WP:Edit warring is a policy and this is not the talk page for that article.  Sort it out there. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Roslyn issue (covered in detail Anthony Appleyard's talkpage, but only briefly mentioned here), I've started a discussion section at Talk:Roslyn_(compiler), if there's any discussion to be had. Given that there are two–potentially three–different IPs in play here, and all have already been given notice of this noticeboard topic, this seems like an acceptable way to direct any interested parties to that discussion regarding that issue. (Otherwise, we're talking about leaving three more talk page notices, and still potentially missing out if IPs change again. No action, from an admin or otherwise, is requested right now.  This message is purely for good measure.) -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 23:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is not the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Lehol reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 884998425 by VeryRarelyStable (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884960915 by Elphion (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884953193 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 4)  "correction of wrong information using as source the online version of British Encyclopedia."
 * 5)  "correction of wrong information"
 * 1)  "correction of wrong information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on C. S. Lewis. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "British and Irish" in the opening paragraph */ R"
 * 2)   "/* "British and Irish" in the opening paragraph */ R"

Requesting comment from, and , all of whom reverted Lehol. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I have given them an initial 24 hours block as they have clearly violated the 3RR. Will see what happens when the block expires, if they continue to revert without a new consensus then they are heading for longer blocks or even an indefinite one. Keith D (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith D. I was just coming to say that there were two more reverts since the last one I added. I don't have any horses in this race, but consensus has been "British" here so I was simply helping to maintain consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (as requested above by User:Walter Görlitz): I reverted the change, to restore long-standing consensus at C. S. Lewis (as discussed in reams of archives) in light of MOS:OPENPARABIO. -- Elphion (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JosefAbraham reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "OK, I took another whack at an edit.  To me, it's important to mention the public comment rules were violated.  I want to keep the primary sources linked also please.  Thanks for your edits, this is good enough."
 * 2)  "I made a few minor edits to this that I think I can live with.  Thanks SounderBruce for your help.  I think we're good here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 884663132 by SounderBruce (talk) There is no pressing need to change the page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 884659209 by SounderBruce (talk)  No reason to change it.  I quoted from the article and mentioned a YouTube clip supporting the description."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lorena González. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* February 2019 */  more"
 * 3)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Lorena González. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user keeps trying to add his interpretation of an extremely minor event (a councilmember kicking out a public commenter) with no long-lasting effects. The additions includes links to his personal Youtube channel and his personal Scribd account. Despite several warnings about edit warring, the user refuses to comply with NPOV.  Sounder Bruce  06:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounder Bruce  Thank you, the links ARE to my personal YouTube and Scribd. I receive no financial compensation for hosting primary source material. JosefAbraham 06:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)  JosefAbraham 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me also add for the record, the reason why Tsimerman was thrown out for a year versus just a meeting or a month was because of repeat, malicious violations of Seattle City Council public comment rules. I welcome other editors taking a look and coming up with some kind of long-term solution. Councilmember Gonzalez has other accomplishments, but frankly I haven't had the time to add them. JosefAbraham 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For WP:3RR violations, the reasons you were doing it generally don't matter (outside of a few specific exceptions that do not apply to your edits.) In fact, your edits themselves were potential WP:BLP violations, since you seem to have been sourcing negative material about a living person to a source that definitely doesn't pass WP:RS.  I suggest you read the three policies I linked - WP:3RR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:JosefAbraham is warned they may be blocked the next time they add links to questionable sources like Youtube or Scribd to this article unless they have obtained prior consensus to do so on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I accept the warning with grace and acceptance. Thank you for the probation EdJohnston. JosefAbraham 23:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC) JosefAbraham  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

User:81.200.82.126 reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on UFC. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on UFC. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * by Samsara. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:WestManMedia reported by User:Michig (Result: blocked two days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] n/a

Comments:

User adding long lists of largely non-notable people, without supporting sources, possibly promotional.


 * Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 2600:1:D220:9120:A020:771:834F:7D75 reported by User:Hawkeye7 (Result: Blocked two days)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) High-traffic featured article.
 * 2) Reversion has been by a different editor each time - four different editors.
 * 3) Previously blocked for 3RR for the same change on this article as  on 17 February.
 * 4) Eight earlier reverts as different IPs on 13 and 14 February.
 * 5) Rather than playing IP wack-a-mole, recommend semi-protecting the page for 30 days - but edit warring is the problem, so reported here rather than to RFPP.
 * Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye7, "there's an edit war at this page" is a perfectly good reason to make a WP:RFPP request. If any further edit-warring occurs, let me know and I'll protect the page; it's just that this was all coming from the same IPv6 (even two edits coming from the same one is rare, since they're so dynamic), so I figured a block might well work, but I'm happy to protect if it doesn't.  Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaargh. He's still at it. Please protect the page.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv, the RfC can continue while these edits exist for discussion"
 * 2)  "per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR"
 * 3)  "very well, adding names per discussion on talk"
 * 4)  "rv, if this is removed again, I'll simply restore the names, as consensus appears to be forming in support of that on talk"
 * 5)  "rv, there's a dispute, deal with it on the talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

He's been warned multiple times by multiple editors, all removed from his talk. An RfC is ongoing. John from Idegon (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note All diffs are spanned over three days. Note also the behavior of other editors removing standard boilerplate templates notifying viewers of the dispute on the talk page (which is what gave rise to this most recent EW). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Not quite a 3RR violation, but edit warring nonetheless. Message above gives no indication that they will stop reverting. Blocked 36 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Buck12341 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

3 reverts on a 1RR restricted article, adding in defamatory WP:BLP violating content, based on unreliable sources. Personal attacks and insults in edit summaries and talk page(s).

Previous problematic edits: (source does not support text. Nothing in it about "neo-Marxism")

General bad practice of marking controversial edits as "minor"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Eh.

Comments:

I linked to 5-6 sources which were all reliable and not defamatory in the least. You losers keep working overtime protecting your left-wing pets. You make this site a freaking joke. (This is a minor edit, bitch) Buck12341 (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Buck12341
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Berberu reported by User:Othon I (Result: blocked two days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First revert of properly sourced material. Ignored completely my advice.
 * 2)  Continued the same motive.
 * 3)  Same as above and accused me of playing politics?.
 * 4)  Ignored the rs again and accused me for the following: Otton looks as biased troll. All the previous evidence is that Dumba is Aromanian (surname still in existence). Please provide real evidence before you revert & COOPERATE. Aromanians do not have finances to wage political war. You have to be fair to real history for future generations.
 * 5)  Ignore my warning in his talk page and page history and reverted for the 3rd time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Berberu seems to be a new account who edit mostly topics about Aromanians. His has a disruptive behaviour as seen in the article of Nikolaus Dumba, ignoring rs and not following WP:NPOV rules. I have informed him twice that he will be reported, he completely ignored it and continued is edit war. He also seems to believe that Greek identity did not exist in Medieval times and this is a motive to disrupt other articles like the following. Othon I (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See further explanation. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Nyttend. I will revert Berberu's changes back to the stable version and I will let you know if the issue persists so maybe an article protection might be needed to be issued. Othon I (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tony85poon reported by User:Supermann (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The full history is easier to see. At this point, I think the crux of the issue centers primarily on the following films: The Matrix Reloaded, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Prometheus, Resident Evil: Retribution, Django Unchained, Fury, Allied, American Hustle, Rush, to name a few.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * 1) The reported user simply ignores the "consensus" previously reached on the entire talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film_censorship_in_China. He not only engages in edit-war here but also elsewhere. If you look at his talk page, you will see. The subject page's previous editors may have lost interest, so no one has done anything. I am not particularly good with all the rules, so it took me a while to do this, but I am willing to accept any consequences for filing this report. Supermann (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that (AGF) the user did not know about the 3RR rule. As soon as they were warned by they stopped edit warring. I'm willing to close this with no action at this time, but if edit warring resumes then a block may be issued &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... Drmies (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ed has left a final warning on their talk page. We'll see what happens &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Evrik (Result: blocked OP)
User being reported:

This is the image that caused much of the hullaballoo: File:Rodney On the ROQ Vol III featuring Olivia Barash.jpg

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Page:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

There was also this choice comment: unsupported by cited sources, POV-pushing, fanboy gushery

Page:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There are also these pages:

Page:


 * 1)

Page:


 * 1)

I am more than willing to discuss the validity of the image, or it's placement on any of the pages, but HW doesn't seem interested in discussion and seems to take a carpet bombing form of editing. I think the attitude is reflected in their signature:

Oh, and this was this bon mot written in the edit summary to, "Don't post dishonest crap on my talk page. That BLP-based edit had a clear, concise edit summary that I've used hundreds of times and is generally recognized as valid."

--evrik (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked OP 24 hours, who has been edit warring with several editors over NFC images &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * in future it would be better to report such behaviour to WP:ANI rather than contribute to edit wars &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would reconsider this. While 3RRNO allows for >3RR for dealing with NFC, it has to be obviously bad use of NFC, and I'm not seeing that here; there's a potential for an allowance for that image in question - I would agree with its removal/omission, but this is not obvious and should be the subject of talk page discussion, assuming that hasn't taken place already. --M asem (t) 05:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no actual 3RR violation that I could see, or the outcome would likely be different &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I am baffled by the argument that the uses here were not obvious NFCC violations. Take the Olivia Barash article, where the most remove/restore exchanges took place. The image in question is a nonfree album cover on which the article subject ostensibly appears. (There seem to no reliable sourcing for this claim, which was referenced (by evrik) to a page which does not even mention Barash or the album cover.) The general rule is that a nonfree cover (whether of a magazine, a book, an album, a single, a DVD, or whatever) image of a living person may not be used to illustrate an article about that person. There are narrow exceptions to this rule, none of which are claimed or arguably present here. Instead. the image was uploaded (by evrik) with use rationales claiming "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art". The article in question never contained any critical commentary regarding the album (or its cover). It contained only an unsupported statement that the article subject was one of the cover models. So we had a nonfree image of a living person, used to illustrate the statement that the subject appears in a copyrighted image, with a rationale citing nonexistent critical commentary. A presumptive violation coupled with a plainly spurious use rationale. A clear violation of both NFC substance and process standards. Either one of these would justify summary removal. Together violation is obvious.
 * , I had intended to file an ANI report if evrik had continued to restore the violations, but their actions last night pre-empted that option. I may yet very well go to ANI, but there's a lot to write up, particularly with regard to fake citations and spurious use rationales.
 * The situation with regard to the other articles is similar if not essentially the same. I would note that evrik began this back-and-forth with multiple improper uses of rollback in what is plainly a legitimate content dispute. They have repeatedly added unsourced and contested claims back to a BLP without any substantive explanation. If evrik were willing to present even the slightest substantive arguments, I'd engage in discussion with them -- as the many, sometimes lengthy, discussions of NFCC matters on my talk page undeniably show. But they're not willing, and they do nothing more than post summary comments on the order pf "you're wrong) as edit summaries. That's not good faith discussion, that's just an effort to frustrate policy enforcement by bogging everything down in time-consuming evasions. And most of these are very recent edits, where BRD puts the onus for opening discussion with the content proponent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * An "obvious" non-free violation would be the use of a non-free image of a living person that we know can be replaced or where there's no rationale for the image on said page. While I fully agree that the cover images have a very long way to go to justify their use on articles outside the album itself, it is within a reasonable range of possibilities, but would of course require a stronger argument to retain them. --M asem (t) 00:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No its not 'within a reasonable range of possibilities'. That is a non-argument that could be used to justify anything. It is up to the person seeking to include a non-free image to provide a legitimate justification, and in the case of non-free images of people on album covers, that is restricted to articles on the album itself, or where there exists significant commentary about the album cover itself in another article. Since there was no significant commentary, it fails the NFC requirements. This is not an argument that has *ever* been subject to the sort of lax interpretation you seem to suggest, and short of an RFC to change the rules/clarify the concensus around the use of non-free images, its not going to change soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Only in death is entirely correct. I would add that the same principles apply to reverting BLP violations. If Masem's approach were to be followed in those cases, editors could not freely revert poorly sourced/unsourced claims like "Article subject was accused of child abuse in 1984", because it is within a reasonable range of possibilities that such an accusation was made, assuming the article subject was old enough at the time for such an accusation would be plausible in theory. That is clearly not an acceptable result. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except OiD's stance is just not true. I'm not disagreeing on the core NFC reasons, but how NFC is handed under 3RRNO, and to avoid the lovely situation that developed around BetaCommand. It is highly unlikely that those albums could be used on pages outside the album itself, I fully agree. But in terms of AGF, while their addition appears to fail NFCC#8, it is possible that one could write a valid rational and supporting information in text to make it fit. That really should be done before the image is added, but it can be done after too. It thus makes it a non-obvious failure of NFCC that is not exempt from edit warring over removal (nor it is exempt from editing warring to retain). As soon as a first BOLD addition and subsequent removal, its inclusion should have been discussed on the talk page, or if that failed to get a consensus, at FFD. Otherwise, you create a situation where if, say, I have any smallest objections with a picture that I think fails NFC, but another editor has honestly found a way to include, I could play the 3RRNO game to keep its removal while the other editor would be in violation past 3RR. We do not want this.
 * The only obvious NFC violations are those that generally require a wholly different picture, and are not the type of things that can be fixed through rationale changes or text improvements. That would limit it to things like press photos, pictures of living persons where a freely available image is obviously possible and other similar free-equivalent replaces of the same object (eg photographs of buildings). --M asem (t) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To add, while there is comparison to BLP, BLP is a much stronger legal-baesd policy that NFC. We are broadly covered under a US fair use defense we are are over-including images, within reason (we just just strive for more restrictive amount). Whereas BLP requires a much more cautious stance and hence why we are lenient on 3RRNO removal when the material is just questionable. --M asem (t) 21:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Hypernerd387 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting page to original content from 2010"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 885183827 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 885179209 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 885154276 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 885153686 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885153686 by The Banner (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Loyola Jesuit College. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Discussion is ongoing on talk, which is good; edit-warring through that discussion, less good. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens. Per this comment, the editor has both a clear conflict of interest in the topic and the intent to promote it. ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The original content of this page that has been in existence for over 10 years was not put there by me. I have only reverted edits to prevent large amounts of content from been removed by another user The Banner. The content is no different from schools like Eton College, Regis High School, or any other Jesuit School's page. By that comment, I meant people come to wikipedia to get as much information about a topic as possible and that is what this page and other pages provide. Every information stated there is objective and they have been there for close to a decade. Hypernerd387 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This current version of the page in question has been in existent for the past 10 years barring minor edits. The banner started editing the page and removing large amounts of contents two weeks ago. I have tried to discuss this with him on the Talk page of Loyola Jesuit College but he is not answering a key question necessary to move the discussion forward. Another administrator stated that the content that was included is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy. The content has been cited and is verifiable. It is not different from those of other similar institutions. Please read the edits and read our discussion on the talk section. I know The banner has been on wikipedia for a longer time, but should that take precedence over the content of the page? What would that say about wikipedia, that older editor's edits/distruptions take precedence over newer members even though the edits are not justifiable? Please read our discussion. Another administrator has agreed that the content that I reverted to (The original content of the page) is verifiable and objective (Please see my talk page) but The Banner insists on reverting to his edits. Please be fair in this judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have re-edited it slightly restoring some of the material, which TB might have been slightly over the top in removing; the foundation and the air crash are clearly notable, and I don't particularly see how the latter at least helps promote the place. But there is no room for promotional cruftness. By the way, could you please sign your posts; you are working the not overtime. Use ~ to do so automatically.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the plane crash, I had moved the info about the memorial hall to the section about the campus - shot down by Hypernerd387. I removed the info about Kechi Okwuchi, as he has his own page - shot down by Hypernerd387. I had moved the test results from the lead to a place near the end of the article but Hypernerd387 did put it again in the lead (without removing it from the end). He already tried to silence me at "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Vandalism" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism" (rejected). And his argumentation is nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No serious content related issues. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This version is fine, but May I know why you took out information on test scores. Loyola Jesuit College is a Jesuit High School. If you visit the page of a similar sister Jesuit high school in New York, Regis High School (New York City) It says "Regis is consistently ranked in the top five high schools in the nation in regards to SAT/ACT scores" A lot of notable schools in the US and UK, Eaton College, UK, Westminster College, etc have information on test performance because it's crucial information. There is cited material on Loyola Jesuit ranking in WAEC (Nigeria's version of SAT/GCSE) which was included. May I return this information? Hypernerd387 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I included test information like Loyola's sister school Regis High School (New York City) If this is okay. This information and format is similar to other notable schools around the world. I have not done anything different with this page. Please review it and determine if it is okay. Thank you Hypernerd387 (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please respond so I know what the Administrators feel about including this information. The information is veriable and meets wiki policies. It is also included in every other institutions website. Hypernerd387 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Hypernerd387. Please make a promise here that you won't edit the article again without prior consensus on the talk page. That might be enough to avoid getting blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly but nobody is talking on the page. The only other editor that has discussed the issue on the page is The Banner. I just asked a question about including information on test scores and nobody has responded. Also, would consensus mean two or more editors? Hypernerd387 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hypernerd387, you have already broken 3RR. I'm not open to discussing the article here; either agree or not. If not, I will proceed with the block. Consensus often implies a genuine discussion in which at least one person agrees with you and nobody disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is more longer-term edit warring going on here . I think Hypernerd387 needs to explain his changes on talk and other people agree to them before we can trust him not to revert again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RTY9099 reported by User:Sigwald (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert without comments #1
 * 2) revert without comments #2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page. I've recieved no answer.

Comments:

RTY9099 (author of this article) made very controversial statements without proper reliable sources in it from the start, which where deleted/corrected by me. Now he is adding another one: "According to writer Dmitry Bykov, Ponasenkov is the Oscar Wilde of our age". Problem is Bykov doesn't say such words, Bykov says that Ponasenkov is snob, and Wilde is snob. Conclusion that "Ponasenkov is Whilde of our age" is made solely by RTY9099. It's classical original research in my opinion. Another part of RTY9099's reverting - deleting "unreliable source" template. Provided link (http://lichnaya-zhizn.ru) is classical yellow press IMHO, and it can't be used in Wikipedia article. --Sigwald (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RTY9099 has made just two edits here in the last three weeks; we're not really into edit-warring territory at this point. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is not edit-war itself. Real problem is that user adding incorrect information on purpose. --Sigwald (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave it here: ru:Википедия:Проверка участников/Кориоланыч-8. --Sigwald (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * RTY9099 is a sock puppet of previously blocked . --Sigwald (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, Sigwald, I blocked him with reference to Russian CU. Thank you!  For future reference, please don't report people here if they're not edit-warring; you won't get in trouble, but it's confusing because admins here aren't looking for anything beyond the presence of edit-warring.  If a user is intentionally adding incorrect information (and it's really obvious), it's better to report at WP:AIV, or if a user is a blocked person's sockpuppet, better to add a new piece to the existing SPI or to start one if one doesn't exist.  I see you don't edit here much; if you're not familiar with our processes and need to have a problematic user blocked, you can always leave a request at WP:ANI, which is meant for solving generally problematic users.  Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've discovered that he is blocked in ruwiki and that he is a sock puppet only after i've wrote this request. =) --Sigwald (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ga ga gooo reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Pro forma warning, this account is apparently a bad hand sock account of an experienced editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been extensive discussion of the general issue on multiple pages, and very limited discussion on the specific article talk page. Ga ga gooo has reverted three different editors, without edit summaries or talk page comments, and is apparently not regarded as a good faith editor.

Comments:

Ga ga gooo is a newly creeated account who is edit warring to restore clear NFCC violations on multiple other articles, including Camp Fire (organization), List of punk rock compilation albums, Olivia Barash, and Rodney Bingenheimer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. Next time please give a warning after the first inappropriate edit, not wait till the fifth &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Buck12341 reported by User:Levivich (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885417938 by Tsumikiria (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 885145794 by PeterTheFourth (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 885141313 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 885141313 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 5)  "Added well-documented info concerning her twitter use and fights, and lack of policy knowledge."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* February 2019 */ + diffs"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:Buck12341
 * 2) WP:ANEW


 * Comments:

This user was blocked yesterday for 24hrs for edit warring. Started edit warring at same article once the block expired. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment's like this and this don't exactly endear one to them in any case. Also this. Also this. I could go on. But it seems silly.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)This is another 1RR violation in 48 hours and the user's sole resolution initiatives are personal attacks("","", and ""), adding that they on the talk page and blanking warning on their user talk page. Quite an egregious case of WP:NOTHERE. Topic ban or indef block may be in order. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 22:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So I am a "" according to this user's latest venture on my own user page. Quite some effort to earn a indef block. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely. I was considering blocking for a week, but I couldn't see any remote possibility that they might reform in that week. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by Anon (Result: no violation)
Page: and HPV

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_papillomavirus_infection&oldid=885468333

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) HPV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_papillomavirus_infection&diff=885468333&oldid=885464105

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Vague responses stating that Diabetes Associations are not reliable and neither are journal articles. No response now yet but has warned me for "edit warring". Have refuted on talk page yet has reverted all of my major expansions to the t1d and hpv articles. 172.219.53.146 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It is being discussed at Talk:Diabetes_mellitus_type_1
 * User:Ruslik0 explained the issues to this IP a few days ago.
 * The user wants to add a mass of popular press and other low quality sources to the article.
 * They have had explained to them what is a high quality source when it comes to medicine.
 * In fact I added one covering some of this Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "explained the issues to this IP a few days ago." My edits were made on the 27th - 28th of February. The talk page message about a suggestion were posed on the 26th. Big difference. Also, you restored info that you claim was unreliably sourced. 172.219.53.146 (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A block of this IP may be useful as they continue to be disruptive.
 * For example they removed this saying that the ref did not support
 * Yet the ref says "Participants who received greater than 2 childhood vaccines of BCG had diminished lifelong risk for developing T1D"
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake on that. No need to assume bad faith and suggest blocks. James, hostility is not appreciated here and is highly unprofessional. 172.219.53.146 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP has now restored the text in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No violation of 3RR, although you are both very close. 172.219.53.146: please take the time to read up on guidelines about reliable sources and ask Doc James if you are unsure. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Big ball of edit war at Singapore Management University reported by (Result: Tempest in a teapot)
Users being reported:

- Blocked

- Blocked

- Blocked

- Protecting admin

Note Some of these are the result of dynamic IP ranges, however I have listed them anyway Page:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts: Special:Diff/885043197

Special:Diff/885008754

Special:Diff/885008488

Special:Diff/885008216

Special:Diff/885008047

Special:Diff/885007599

Special:Diff/885008583

Special:Diff/884604183

Special:Diff/884491447

Special:Diff/884417159

Special:Diff/884402629

Special:Diff/884402416

Special:Diff/884401758

Special:Diff/884401530

Special:Diff/884401484

Special:Diff/884401469

There is at least 100 more (there are 300 total diffs since the war started) Note Some of these are not reverts in the technical sense, however are nonetheless reinstating old content Courtesy link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Management_University&action=history

Other notes

This is a slow-burn edit war, so not all of the editors have violated 3RR (although some of them have)

Not all the editors here are currently involved, but have been since it started so I listed them anyway.

I was not involved in this prior to filing this report

I have reported all editors, regardless of 'side'


 * Comments:
 * What the actual—? This isn't an edit war; this a bunch of editors and/or socks repeatedly inserting cruft to big up their institution—and likely employer!—and another bunch removing said crap after them. Suggest immediate withdrawal: the page is currently protected and, coincidentally, protection seems to stop the "edit war" each time. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Since semi-protected the page two days ago, the disruption has stopped for the time being. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In other news, is a tempest in a teapot what a man in a suitcase drinks :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note also that some of the users reported are administrators taking administrative action on the page. I'd go so far as to say this is a malformed report. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not familiar with WP:AN3 &#91;Username Needed&#93; 09:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mwoofsh reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885492104 by Thomas.W (talk) blatant troll"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 885490460 by Thomas.W (talk), rv again, see my reply on my talk"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 885487531 by Thomas.W (talk) see source which is included in edit, thanks"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 884887083 by Thomas.W (talk) see source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Liberland."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

A user who has never edited their article before suddenly pops up repeatedly re-adding a Liberland press release (sourced only to Liberland's own website) that had been removed for being about a totally non-notable appointment of a local representative, originally added to promote the individual mentioned (see Draft:Daniel Dabek: see also a message I posted on the user's talk page). After receiving a 3RR-warning they made a fourth revert, with the edit summary "blatant troll"... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and if you care to look who has done the reverting, it has been Fecalfingers from the word go. --Mwoofsh (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Widr (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wicka wicka reported by User:Galatz (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

A conversation was started on the talk page Talk:All_Elite_Wrestling and the user began demanding immediate responses. In addition he posted on the talk page of two others who reverted him and  demanding their immediate responses. Despite the warning of 3RR on their talk page, after 30 minutes of waiting for the responses the user reverted for a forth time. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The last link is not a revert. That's only three reverts. And I was removing an unsourced and untrue statement. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a revert. This was only added yesterday through a series of edits, here are all the edits from yesterday: . Your first edit was to revert what was added yesterday. You then proceeded to revert it 3 additional times. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also it was sourced, but you stated the source was wrong without providing evidence to state such. I however did provide it on the talk page. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Absolute nonsense. My first edit was NOT a revert. It was a 100% normal edit to remove a sentence that was untrue. By your definition, literally any edit is a revert.
 * 2. I do not have to provide evidence to remove an incorrectly sourced statement. The lack of a correct source IS the evidence. If someone says "The sun is made of kittens" I do not have to find a source where a scientist explicitly states "The sun is not made of kittens." That's obviously impossible.
 * 3. I don't think it's good to lie to our readers. I hope that's not a crazy opinion to hold. Wicka wicka (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone added something yesterday, and you removed it today. Thats the exact definition of a revert. If the person had posted that the sun is made of kittens and provided a reliable source to back up their stance, then conversation needs to be had as to why the sources disagree and a consensus needs to be reached. The issue here is that initially it was said that everyone would be covered and that is why the source stated it, it was later clarified as to what exactly that meant. The issue was the source was just outdated, not that it was a lie. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * if you are removing content then that is generally considered to be a revert. In any case the three reversions is not to be considered an entitlement. It would be much better to stop edit warring after 1 revert. You have been around long enough to know this stuff. I am going to close this with a warning, but may not be so lenient next time. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just find it difficult to believe that the correct course of action when confronted with an unsourced, obviously false statement present in an article is to let it sit there and continue misleading users while we waste time arguing on the talk pages. Wikipedia has been fighting an uphill battle against those who don't think its trustworthy for literally of entirety of this website's existence; you don't think we should take extra measures in these cases? Wicka wicka (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:202.142.117.151 reported by User:Jayantanth (Result: No violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Date of birth given here was wrong."
 * 1)  "Date of birth given here was wrong."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Date of Birth */ new section"


 * Comments:

From this IP, repetaely change the birth day 28th February to 24 October. 28th February is correct as per https://www.loc.gov/acq/ovop/delhi/salrp/sanjeevchattopadhyay.html As of now wrong DOB showing. Please change it to actual to 28th Feb. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Barbariankiller456 reported by User:Sairg (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reign and assassination */The reference is given at the end. Kindly go through it before making disruptive edits. There are arguements from both ends. Logic must prevail."
 * 2)  "/* Reign and assassination */Sourced arguement provided with reference."
 * 1)  "/* Reign and assassination */Sourced arguement provided with reference."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sutuphaa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* February 2019 */ reply-warn"
 * 3)   "/* February 2019 */ reply-warn"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

WP:DE, Unsourced content breaking WP:NPOV Sairg (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See Usernames for administrator attention (the user whom this report was filed against is reported there.)211.27.115.246 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of 3RR here. Although User:Barbariankiller456 would be advised to read WP:SYNTH and to discuss any disputed changes on the talk page &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Wilbur777 reported by User:Tutelary (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885614275 by Jdmdk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 885614340 by Jdmdk (talk)"
 * 3)  "My contribution was perfectly valid and covers an important aspect of the group's work. I also put a lot of work into it. Undo it again, and I will report you. Undid revision 885541687 by Tutelary (talk)"
 * 1)  "My contribution was perfectly valid and covers an important aspect of the group's work. I also put a lot of work into it. Undo it again, and I will report you. Undid revision 885541687 by Tutelary (talk)"
 * 1)  "My contribution was perfectly valid and covers an important aspect of the group's work. I also put a lot of work into it. Undo it again, and I will report you. Undid revision 885541687 by Tutelary (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NPOV */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Controversy */ r"
 * 3)   "/* Controversy */ more"


 * Comments:

This article frankly needs a lot of work. I saw the article after I came back from my hiatus and saw that it reads like a PR statement. I submitted comments on the talk page. I also submitted a request for help on the NPOV noticeboard. I then noticed Wilbur77 was adding more content that was WP:UNDUE, and a violation of WP:PRIMARY. I reverted. They reverted back. Another user reverted Wilbur, and they further reverted back. I acknowledge that I should have issued the edit warring notice earlier, but in either case, if no action is taken because of that--I would like an administrator to advise the user to stop edit warring, and to use the talk page for disputes. They haven't engaged on the talk page since April of 2016. (not joking.) Tutelary (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The material added was factual and well sourced. It covers an important aspect of the organization's work that was not addressed elsewhere in the article. I put a lot of work into it, especially the references, and then users simply came along and cut it. That is vandalism. The edits and comments from these users, including Tutelary, demonstrate that they have a clear negative bias against the organization and are attempting to use the page not in a neutral and descriptive fashion but as a way to attack the subject of the article. They are also attempting to suppress important information about that organization. These sorts of changes are clear violations of policies that require balance and appropriate emphasis.Wilbur777 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would also like to report on the activities of Jdmdk who has repeatedly changed the "focus" of the organization in the article from "animal rights" and "animal welfare" (both linked to articles on these subjects) to the meaningless designation "Alternative/Unconventional Animal Rights" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&diff=885222560&oldid=885197893). That description is not in common usage and conveys nothing of substance, and there is no Wikipedia article to link it to for further information. Essentially, the user has simply arbitrarily created his own category as a way, apparently, of trying to marginalize or trivialize what the organization in question does.


 * Even more extreme vandalism has been committed by Loomman529, whose activities I have reported elsewhere. Here is one example of his obnoxious and utterly inappropriate "editing": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&diff=885172517&oldid=885145615.


 * Also, on the talk page for this article, Adamadam1718 posted the following entirely inappropriate comment: "Peta is a hipocritical [sic] pile of shit and should be destroyed."


 * It's clear that there is a pattern of vandalism and inappropriate changes and comments on this page from users who are hostile to the subject. I strongly suggest that these users not be permitted to edit this semi-protected page.Wilbur777 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to make my position clear here. I have no intention of vandalizing the article but would like to make sure that the PETA article is as unbiased as possible, as such, there must be both sides of the argument present in said article in accordance with Wikipedia policy.Jdmdk (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits do not qualify as vandalism because they do not intentionally try to harm the wiki. Vandalism has a very clear definition, and good faith edits to improve the article is not one of them. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. - WP:VANDALISM Wilbur, it would be best if you not accuse others of whom you disagree of vandalizing the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I maintain that removing my well-supported and purely factual addition as well as changing the "focus" to something meaningless, as Jdmdk has done repeatedly, even after being told why it was wrong, constitute vandalism. Your arguments, Tutelary, tend to be legalistic and evade the heart of the matter. There have also been quite a few obvious "bad-faith" changes of late, including those repeatedly made by Loomman529.Wilbur777 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it speaks volumes about Tutelary's agenda that this user has "reported" me for making substantive, important, and purely factual additions to this article, whereas this user completely ignored flagrant hostile vandalism by Loomman529 and is now defending milder vandalism by Jdmdk. All of these users have demonstrated themselves, in varying degrees, to be negatively disposed toward the subject of the article, and all of them are, I believe, overly prejudiced and insufficiently knowledgeable about the subject and the issues to edit the article in a constructive way. They also are intent on blocking contributions from people who have a much stronger grasp of the subject matter and are actually willing to put in some time to do some research and writing.Wilbur777 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Melissambstan reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885648561 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 885496019 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 885496019 by Loriendrew (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '==Partners==  Partner per Template:Infobox person: partner means means unmarried life partners. Please do not add this unless the criteria are valid.-- ☾Loriendrew☽   ☏(ring-ring)  19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)'"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Melissa Benoist. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Multiple reverts of policy based removals of content without responding to attempts of discussion. Created a usertalk section linking to policy defining of “partner” within the Template:infobox person, yet shortly thereafter undid the revert. User was reverted by myself and at least one more person, continues to undo the removal. ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't see a specific warning given about 3RR, so I gave it and invited them to discuss the matter at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by 2601:149:8100:B951:9963:681A:552A:73A3 (Result: No violation)
For several years editor has been reverting properly formatted and referenced posts on several articles, most notably Boeing C-40 Clipper and McDonnell Douglas C-9; he apparently feels they are his 'personal' articles and no one else should be able to edit, additionally that only he can decide how unit listings are done. He has reverted edits that have been in place for several years and are consistent with those of other aircraft articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:149:8100:b951:9963:681a:552a:73a3 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * is not violating 3RR. One of the exemptions outlined at WP:NOT3RR is "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users", and the aforementioned edits are good-faith reverts of apparent sockpuppets. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:4F0B:4500:298A:4295:F704:ECFB reported by User:81.173.209.39 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

uncivil ip user passing nasty edit summaries and violating 3RR n noncooperative attitude ! must be blocked n need page protection ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.209.39 (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@C.Fred, what about those edit summeries with uncivil unpolite Personal Attackes. They are still visible on reportated Article Pages! They must be scrapped too! Such unfortunate non socialised People are also here :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A200:0:80C:E137:FB74:DD7E:BC8D (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No warnings had been left at IP's talk page. Will warn about civility and 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They are not so grossly uncivil that revision deletion is justified. Also, please tread carefully, lest your own descriptions of other users be deemed personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Barbariankiller456 reported by User:Sairg (Result: Both socks indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reign and assassination */The reference is given at the end. Kindly go through it before making disruptive edits. There are arguements from both ends. Logic must prevail."
 * 2)  "/* Reign and assassination */Sourced arguement provided with reference."
 * 1)  "/* Reign and assassination */Sourced arguement provided with reference."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

users doing WP:DE and WP:SYNTH edits, I request the user to read WP:SYNTH and used the Talk page but didn't respond and started reverting the edits which even doesn't rely on the ref. sources are given. Kindly take a look on the sources the user has given that even doesn't match with the edits:-
 * In the reference  A review of Buranjis, p.76 Clearly mention - The number of men and belongings are important for the analysis of the nature and the further developments of this journey under Sukapha. Some scholars hold that three queens,20 two sons and one daughter21 also accompanied Sukapha. Gait also has written that Sukapha was accompanied by 9000 men, women and but the user edited as -According to the Bahgharia Buragohain Buranji included in the Deodhai Buranji,Sukapha was accompanied by 360 people, 30 horses along with 2 elephants and their conductors Which is edited or unpublished manuscript according to the source itself. Kindly check yourself.
 * In the reference Wade, J.P. An Account of Assam, 1800, p. 16 It's funny to say again that ther is no mention metch with his edits - In the book "An account of Assam", J.P. Wade states that a total of 300 men accompanied Sukapha along with 12 commanders, 30 horses, 2 elephants and 2 conductors of elephan. Kindly Check yourself again.Sairg (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Sairg (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the reference A review of Buranjis, p.76 - Can a review be a reliable Source??
 * Both users blocked as socks of different masters.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Sairg reported by User:Barbariankiller456 (Result: Both socks blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1st revert
 * 2) 2nd revert
 * 3) 3rd revert
 * 4) 4th revert
 * 5) 5th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user Sairg has been involved in a edit war in the page Sukaphaa with multiple users and has crossed the 3RR rule even after been warned. He is involved in removing sourced content which seems to be against his own POV and is using Wikipedia for pushing his POV. He crossed the line by reverting an edit even after the page was protected by an admin after reverting his edit. Kindly increase the level of protection for the page or take necessary actions against Sairg. Barbariankiller456 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the other half of a tit-for-tat pair of reports; another admin already blocked both parties. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Multiple, but largely this.

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Here (removing a paragraph and several sources to revert towards this version.)
 * 2) Here (reverting lead to this version.)
 * 3) Here (reverted to this version.)
 * 4) Here (restored this removal.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here was where discussions started, here is more recent discussions.

Comments:

Some of the reverts were reverting stuff back towards the initial version linked up top via removals; others were reverting intermediate changes, like the reordering and restoring a deleted quote elsewhere in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of violating 3RR, so if there is a violation in there, my apologies, but I don't see it. Much of the work in these edits were a result of extensive talk page discussions. To discuss the edits, I have to take them in chronological order (not done above). Diff2 and Diff4 were really all part of a single editing session, from 22:30 to 23:57 March 1, with an intervening edit conflict that somewhat confuses things (which I noted here) - so they aren't actually two separate reverts. Diff3 is actually me fixing a duplicated line that Aquillion added in his run of edits - maintenance, not a substantive revert. Diff1 is a revert, but only if one discounts that the WP:ONUS requirement can be GAMED, since it technically takes a revert to remove disputed content that hasn't met ONUS. Aquillion the added the content, and I removed them, but that was after two days of extensive talk page discussion about their appropriateness. It was process, not edit warring. And now it seems he's decided to escalate here to win his way. Added: Also, I know this isn't the right venue, but I think it shows Aquillon's motive and tactics - today he STALKED me to a completely unconnected RFC page, challenging my vote within a few minutes. -- Netoholic @ 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the other way around. Looking at the edits: Aquillion was at that article more than a month ago. So it looks like Netholic is the "stalker" and is casting false witness here instead of admitting the violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.85.164 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Several points, so I'll break up my replies to each for readability:
 * Diff 2 and Diff 4 are not part of the same editing session; someone else, Ronz, made an edit in the middle. Normally, perhaps, this might not be a huge deal (it technically breaks a series of edits, but if it was an unrelated edit I could see you seeing that as gaming.)  However, as it happens, Ronz' edit was the one you reverted with Diff4 - I don't see how you can claim that as part of the same editing session you began before that edit.
 * Regarding Diff3, you reverted wholesale, including several changes that obviously aren't part of simple maintenance (eg. putting the text you preferred at the top of the section, or the "Nonetheless ... consistently".)
 * Regarding WP:ONUS, we discussed this on talk and I explained my position as to why I felt there was tentative support for my edits (which, based on a glance at the most recent contribution to the talk page, was correct; I can understand disagreeing over this at the time, but it doesn't allow you to ignore WP:3RR.)
 * If you look at that WP:RFC, you'll see that I weighed in there about half a day before you, and (as the anon above implied) had been active on the page for a while in general; obviously, it was on my watchlist (unsurprising that our interests in it would overlap given that it's not a totally unrelated topic area on account of how Gab describes itself.)
 * Regarding WP:GAMING, unless you have a truly extreme history of edit-warring, one WP:3RR report isn't going to resolve anything; even if you get blocked, you'll eventually return and we'll just pick up our dispute where we left off. More importantly, before filing this report, I specifically warned you on talk and gave you a chance to revert yourself - if you had done that, you could have waited mere hours and re-instated your edits (still edit-warring, but it would have avoided a WP:3RR problem), so if I was gaming the system it's not like I had anything to gain by warning you first. I wasn't required to do so - as an extremely experienced editor, you are obviously well-aware of the WP:3RR, after all.  That warning was legitimately because my goal was just to ensure you, at the very least, didn't keep reverting on the page at WP:3RR levels.
 * I freely admit that I've made some errors at various points (though I think they're mostly much more minor than you've implied, and I've generally tried to fix them quickly when called to my attention, even if it wasn't always the fix you specifically wanted), but it feels like you're viewing everything I do through a WP:BATTLEGROUND lens based on your assessment of my initial edits on that page. --Aquillion (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Neither party seems to be making adequate use of the talk page given the large number of their reverts. An RfC is one way to solve this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 reported by User:Lehol (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehol (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The edits by appear to be good-faith repairs of edits that are of questionable faith by IP editors. If any action needs taken, it's semi-protection of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, the latest edits were made by 178.167.218.86 (which geolocates to Dublin) and (more curiously) by IP 193.61.203.162 (which geolocates to King's College London). So why User:Lehol had to get involved here, after also making unexplained edits to my User page, I'm not too sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although (even more curiously) it actually began on 4 February with 108.26.199.86 (which geolocates to "Newton Center, Massachusetts"). How very odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing going on here, I think. I hope I have exerted my usual calming influence. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Three IPs have been editing with such close agreement that they might very well be the same person. We usually describe someone's birthplace in terms of whatever political unit existed at that time, rather than what exists at the present day. The filer of this report, User:Lehol, was recently blocked per a different edit war about Irish nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dolfinz1972 reported by User:Lee Vilenski (Result: duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talk page, but the WikiProject page (as it was over 10 pages in total) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Comments:

Also had some poor civalty, and removal of warning from userpage. I'm quite calm about the discussion, as it should be discussed, however, the user is ignoring the discussion and reverting anway as part of WP:BRD. I should note, that I have not been reverting (outside of once) today on the target article, or other articles. Please let me know if I need to provide more information. Also, I have zero against the editor, however, I believe this requires artribution. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This user was reported in the section above. Would you like to consolidate your comments there? —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies. It must have been posted whilst I was getting the diffs! No worries. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dolfinz1972 reported by User:Iridescent (Result: Blocked one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Spike 'em (talk) to last revision by Dolfinz1972 (TW)"
 * 2)  "bruh. hell no. I'm not adding that shit my nigga"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Spike 'em (talk) to last revision by Dolfinz1972 (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Lee Vilenski (talk) to last revision by Dolfinz1972 (TW)"
 * 5)  "we don't need the damn summary of the WC from the article since it's in the original WC article. stop f'ng with it. and other countries don't have that info. it takes over half of the lead and has no relevance to England."
 * 6)  "do we really need this info in the lead if it's about a country at the WC? I don't think so"
 * 7)  "Reverted edits by Lee Vilenski (talk) to last version by Dolfinz1972"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Reporting rather than blocking myself, as I'm one of the (many) people who's reverted him. He's been warned—and had it explained to him at length—at ANI and the football project, and explicitly said he's going to carry on regardless. (There's no thread on the article talk page as the discussion took place elsewhere.) Note also that he's literally just come off a block for identical editwarring on other related pages. &#8209; Iridescent 16:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop making me the enemy. Leave it alone if you leave Scotland and other countries alone. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have invited the user to self-revert and engage in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User has self-reverted. I'm willing to consider this a positive step by the user and recommend against any other sanctions at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - The issues here have nothing to do with the actual content of the articles. Wikipedia has rules on how many times you can revert, and changes that are contentious, need to be discussed. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit I acted incivil with my edit summaries. I am a millenial and us millenials use words that way. But I'll try to be civil. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Dolfinz1972: WP:AN3 is focused specifically on editor conduct related to edit warring and the three-revert rule. Had their been broader concerns about your conduct, this discussion would be happening in a forum like WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . That's pretty extreme both in reverts and behavior, and in the excuse for it ("I am a millenial"). Also, they just came off a previous edit warring block. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C.Fred, I'm sorry, I missed your comment above. I think I'll leave the block, for myself, but please feel free to unblock. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC).
 * @Bishonen: I just dug deeper into this user's editing history. They've removed the intro text from, it seems, every __________ at the FIFA World Cup article. I endorse the block and think that, if this user were to engage in further edit warring after the block expires, it would be time to talk about a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good block. My block for exactly the same edit war had just expired; I had also removed their rollback bit (see my talk page for more). Maybe they'll get the point this time, or if not then a topic ban should be imposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 bot and User:JJMC89 reported by User:YborCityJohn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: User:JJMC89 bot and User:JJMC89

Previous version reverted to: Link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Link 1
 * 2) Link 2
 * 3) Link 3
 * 4) Link 4
 * 5) Link 5
 * 6) Link 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] User_talk:JJMC89

Comments:

I Updated the transportation section of the Orange County, Florida page to include public transportation, I used the logos in a similar way that the highway signs are used, after about three or four days, User:JJMC89 bot deletes the image claiming its a WP:NFCC violation, but if you look in the image's page <-File:Greyhound_UK_logo.png-> under licensing it states, it being used on Wikipedia under fair use (Note that this logo is also being used on the Greyhound Lines Wikipedia page without interference), another thing when they deleted the image they did NOT include replacement text i.e. the word Greyhound so readers had no idea what it was referring to, I reverted the edit a day later it was reverted again by the same bot, I left a message on the bot owner's page and they proceeded to revert the edit leaving a snide and snotty remark on their talk page. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing blatant violations are exempt per WP:3RRNO#5. Not having the required rationale (criterion 10c) is about as blatant a violation as it gets. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * per WP:3RRNO #5. Content is a straightforward copyvio under the relevant policy, which dictates that any non-free content must provide a specific and independent WP:NFCC-compliant rationale for each use. This image correctly failed an automated check for this straightforward requirement and was correctly removed by a bot. Edit warring with a copyright-enforcement bot under the ridiculous premise of "bot vandalism" is especially boneheaded and egregious., copyvios are a severe offense, and the only reason you're not catching a block for this is because it's been over 24 hours since your last violation, and your most recent edit did not restore the image, which suggests that you have voluntarily backed off. I understand that other logos were not removed, but the other logos are free content, unlike the Greyhound logo. So, when a bot that automatically performs basic copyright checks cites Copyright policy noncompliance, and then a human user specifically cites the criteria that are not satisfied, and you continue to re-add it, you are going to be blocked without hesitation. Please do not add files unless you ensure that they satisfy the WP:NFCC beforehand, and if you are unwilling to make an effort to comply with the nuances of copyright practices, refrain from adding files. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And there are even more reverts (in fact a wall of them before this, as well as three or four after the last one I posted here) as well as (in some users eyes) misleading edit summaries. They were also warned on their talk page [].Slatersteven (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Individual edits, which were marked as minor when they were exclusively grammatical, were not reverted. Many explained edits and typo corrections were being reverted. There are severe WP: OWN issues here, which I am happy that are being reviewed. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Misleading edits summaries are part of the issue Some of the grammatical changes were OK but many needless and a lot designed to change the meaning of the phrase to support the EDL position.   Complete lac of engagement on the talk page and attempting to submerge controversial changes in so called minor ones -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 23:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a single edit was marked as minor that was not minor. If single edits had been reverted none of this would have happened. The issue was that people reverted multiple edits, each of which had its own explanation, when all that was needed was to identify the edit in question. I respectfully invite you to single out one edit with a misleading summary. Every edit I marked as minor was exclusively a correction of grammar. Some editors chose to revert all edits. I have reverted all controversial edits myself. You'll notice that none of them was misleading or marked as minor.NEDOCHAN (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Of the three sets of edits which had an edit summary which said they were grammatical changes, two clearly attempt to qualify properly sourced material with Weasel words. I've just made one more change where you tried to use the word 'fact' which is not there in the sources which clearly says its a perception (this time about a far right claim).  That was after you asked us to let you revert all the controversial changes.   -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 08:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowded. You realise you restored my edit, don't you? The ORIGINAL version said 'face', which was probably a typo when it was meant to say 'fact'. I CHANGED IT TO PERCEPTION, as it's a perception, not a fact. Following people complaining, I restored it to the way it was before I made a single edit. You then restored my version and use that as a criticism of me, whereas in fact it's a good example of the kind of improvements I made.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Apart (from at least) this one [] which you were aware of (and admitted was a mistake (and thus not a minor edit) here []) 4 hours before you claimed you had not marked a single edit as minor that was not a minor edit. You wonder why some of us think all of your edits needed undoing due to the shear volume we would need to check through, given the above disingenuousness?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a mistake in a minor edit by putting in the wrong date. The minor edit was to correct punctuation and improve readability. I made an error and thanks for pointing that out. It was a minor edit, though. The point is that I was reverted en masse unnecessarily on account of a small number of edits, which were explained and NOT marked as minor, that some disagreed with. You're fixated on a mistake I made that I corrected. It was a minor edit but I made a mistake. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem was it was a small number of edits lost among a huge number of small edits (as with the above mistake, which was marked only as a punctuation change, when it was not only a punctuation change). Edits (that is the small number) you continued to reinsert rather then taking it to the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a punctuation change, I just got the date wrong. It's pretty obvious. You have found a mistake I made when making a minor edit. That's appreciated but let it go. It was a minor edit, as I simply removed semi-colons from a list and made it readable. It was a minor punctuation edit which did not change meaning in any way. I just made a mistake. I made a mistake by repeating a date. An error. Mea culpa. Any edits that had even the slightest impact on meaning were not marked as minor. Move on.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How can you say that this was not a minor edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=885852621&oldid=885852263 NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And they are still reverting [].Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And again [], can someone please stop this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No its just to undo your edits I will also have to edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Still reverting without agreement - and adding personal attacks such as this. Finally deleted after it was pointed out but this is not an editor who wants to work with people -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And again with yet another editor (that's four s/he's edit warring with now) -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the editor refuses to heed advice. A block is definitely needed. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And another thats four times today along on top of the above -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 21:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

All that I have left are simple grammatical copy edits. Let the record show that I have self-reverted every single edit that has been criticised in any way. The last reverts have been to restore careful and uncontroversial copy edits, which took a fair bit of time and which I stand by. Readability and grammar edits are perfectly fine. I have also attempted to discuss on the talk page but been reverted while doing do by editors who have not been involved in the discussion. If I have to fall on my sword so be it. Here is my final edit. I'd love to know what I would need consensus for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Defence_League&diff=886030455&oldid=886030167
 * I really don't understand why a long-term editor previously in good standing would continue this edit warring even after the issue was posted here. I have reluctantly blocked for 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cant either, well except by ABF. Its not as if many of these edits are even needed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User: Beyond My Ken reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 21:05, 16 February

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:58, 3 March
 * 2) 07:07, 4 March
 * 3) 07:13, 4 March
 * 4) 07:29, 4 March

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 07:37, 4 March
 * BMK's response

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 06:30, 4 March 2019
 * 07:29, 4 March 2019

Comments:


 * Note thread by reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, opened at 07:41, 4 March 2019 whereas this report was filed at 08:15, 4 March 2019. Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a violation of 3RR. I blocked BMK last time, so will let another admin make the decision this time. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Retalitory filing, no block warrented on a Technical violation. The reporting user has been long term edit warring over the same stupid tag for weeks. An hour or two one way or another on a revert is not the issue here, it is the persistence of the OP in pushing an incorrect position beyond any reasonable point. See the 43 and 44 bit edits on the article history. They were warned an ANI was coming for the reverting but went ahead and pushed the envelope anyway to taunt BMK. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Sangdeboeuf: On the article talk which you kindly linked, you state "I can't verify any of these sources personally, but ...". BMK points out that such conjecture is not a suitable basis to insist on your tag. You normally do good work so I can only assume you are reluctant to pass an opportunity to win a battle. Has anyone other than you added the tag that you want BMK blocked for removing? If not, both editors should be blocked, or none. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't care whether BMK is blocked or not, but their edit-warring here is symptomatic of their refusal to engage in good-faith collaboration, basically telling me on the talk page to go read all the books before questioning their validity. There aren't even page numbers for these refs. I don't think it's out of line to insist that sources clearly support the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To illustrate my point about BMK refusing to work collaboratively, they wrote a total of one comment on the talk page before dragging me to AN/I over the issue. I normally try to assume good faith, but there are limits. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf is ignoring thefour sources ahead of his/her tag and seems not to have read tje body of the article where there are good examples. I've added a series of examples on the talkpage. Simply put, they are wrong here and are becoming WP:POINTY Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As an admin pointed out on the other ANI thread, I could have simply removed the material outright. I chose instead to try to highlight a problem and work toward a solution. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having tried to work with you on this, I don't agree. You have your blinders firmly in place and it matters not what evidence is supplied you dismiss amd demand more. There are may other articles where there are uncited controversial facts to fix. This is a well cited uncontroversal fact. Legacypac (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 877198409 by GreenC bot (talk): Restore to status quo, as an admin suggested this in another article and I think this should be done here too. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by SnapSnap: No one is saying that you can't change it, but if an image has been used in the article for that long, you need to discuss it first. The MOS guideline you cite does not state that PNG is preferable to JPG in song/album covers, or at all. Stop edit warring and discuss in talk, not in edit summaries. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Continuously going on edit warring and refusal to discuss any change in talk page of articles. — I<b style="color: #FF033E;">B</b> [ <b style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; color: #1C1CF0;">Poke</b> ] 11:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of Spice Up Your Life I think a block is in order here. There has been no attempt to discuss the issue, other than by edit summary &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . I'm seeing a number of warnings on the user's talk page regarding edit warring. Maybe a short time-out might be enough to make some changes in their behaviour. Tabercil (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Professor Mohammad Abdullah reported by User:Worldbruce (Result:indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The version above is perhaps the cleanest version since Professor Mohammad Abdullah began editing the article. It has minimal unsourced content. The diffs below outline their edit warring over the "Personal life" section, but similar evidence could be provided for almost every paragraph in the article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  restored unsourced content after removed by
 * 2)  restored unsourced content after removed by
 * 3)  restored their preferred version of unsourced conent after it was trimmed by
 * 4)  restored their preferred version of unsourced content after it was reverted by
 * 5)  restored unsourced content after removed by

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

WP:SPA unresponsive to numerous warnings from various editors: uw-coi, uw-autobiography, uw-delete2, uw-move3, uw-unsourced4, uw-ewsoft, and the trenchant "Please stop making a mess".

Comments:

WP:NOTHERE, possibly WP:CIR. Despite all warnings, they continue to revert the page to their preferred non-neutral version, filled with a shedload of unsourced adulation. Temporary semi-protection may also be necessary, because similar edits are being made by 2607:fcc8:f987:ed00:1e2:1689:c44e:dfa6, 2607:fcc8:f987:ed00:7c00:59a6:a88c:f9d3, 2607:fcc8:f987:ed00:f1ef:b48:b533:f937, 2607:fcc8:f987:ed00:94bd:1285:78b2:753, and 174.96.157.143 (not, I believe, in an attempt to sock, but simply when they neglect to log in). --Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like to say this, but CIR applies here. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 17:02, 5 March 2019  (talk | contribs) blocked Professor Mohammad Abdullah (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Spam / advertising-only account; self-promotion) Jannik Schwaß (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Balolay reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have provided multiple sources not one. Islam (founded by Muhammad) recognises slavery as an institution. Which led Muslims to continue practicing slavery. Stop disruptive editing"
 * 2)  "It is. Muhammad was the founder of Islam."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user just got warned yesterday for edit warring in Slavery article and even after the warning they kept edit warring in other articles that are related to the subject. Now he is edit warring in the Criticism of Muhammad article and refusing to seek consensus. Very disturbing behaviour. SharabSalam (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC) edited SharabSalam (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually its the other way round. User:SharabSalam has been reverting my valid contributions to other articles since yesterday. Other editors have also responded to his/her edit warring.

I was reported yesterday for edit warring on Slavery. Since than I have respected the status quo & didn't make any further edits on the article. Also I haven't violated the 3 RR. Don't see any reason for ban. Regards Balolay (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "even after the warning and the report they reverted the version article that was before the edit war"


 * no I haven't! Please stop harassing editors who don't agree with your perspective. Regards Balolay (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that the user is now threatening to edit the article of slavery and it hasn't even been 24 hours since the edit war. If this behaviour is tolerated in Wikipedia I am not going to stay more in this community; this is a toxic behaviour. It drives people out of Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So a decent invitation to the talk page is now considered as a threat. Looks like you weren't interested in discussion after all, only to forward your agenda. Btw the administrator who reverted the edit has said that it wasn't status quo. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not an invitation that's a threat of restoring the version you r trying to push before consensus is made and that's not a decent behaviour. It is not the first time if someone just take into consideration your contributions including your 22 hours old edit or your dropping of one sided images into the lead that should be neutral and represent the whole article (the first thing that a reader would see when opening the article is the lead) I am now in a public place and I unable show all of your pushing POV edits that you are trying to push but I will do that when I am free. --SharabSalam (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your arguments on the talk page. I hope we will be able to solve this via discussion. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the slavery page as yet, but this is also an issue with regard to the Criticism of Muhammad page and I have posted a discussion topic on that talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More edit warring here --SharabSalam (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The editor is constantly reverting my edits on various pages without making any valid suggestions & instead asking me to engage in non-productive endless discussions such as the one going on in Talk:Slavery. His/Her baseless arguments to remove material that goes against his/her worldview have also been pointed out by other editors. I hope the admins here take notice because this a serious case of harrasment against a wiki editor. Regards Balolay (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Both users have been blocked based on the edit warring at Abolitionism. As SharabSalam has been blocked previously for edit warring, the duration for their block is longer. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Balolay reported by User:Musicfan122 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Has been edit warring for weeks and is continuing to do so despite explanations in talk and interference from other users and admins. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I want also to add that they have been asking other editors to come to discuss this matter in the talk page while the article is in the version they prefer. I have only problem with the lead image they are trying to add because most of the article is about Western slavery and yet the image in the lead is about Arab slavery. The lead image should be neutral; sometimes it is preferred that there be no image in the lead because the lead image is the first thing a reader would see. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Musicfan122 has been reverting contributions from editors without responding to requests He/She has previously violated the 3 revert rule & was reported for it. But no action was taken whatsoever.Balolay (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ SharabSalam the article isn't about western slavery, it's about slavery in general. You are welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Balolay (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ SharabSalam the article isn't about western slavery, it's about slavery in general. You are welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the talk page. Balolay (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am participating in the discussion I don't understand why you only want us to discuss while the article is in the version you prefer although two editors has been disputing with you. I think you should take a break to read Wikipedia policies instead of edit warring and this behaviour that will only cause you to be blocked and driven other editors to edit war. If you are even refusing to self-revert as I advised you, you can get blocked and you wouldn't even be able to participate in the discussion but that might gives you an opportunity to review Wikipedia's policies--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * @SharabSalam, the editor who reported me has also been engaging in edit war and violation of 3 RR. Also I am trying to keep the article in its current version because one the images which has been here for 7 years was removed without any consensus.Balolay (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you refused the status quo version of the article that an administrator recommend.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The admin's proposed status quo is based on events occurring in last two days. However, this dispute is now more than one month old & other editors have been involved too.Balolay (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Either a block or a full-protection would have been warranted several hours ago. However, Balolay's made a bunch of other edits in the last 9½ hours, including several discussing this precise situation; a block would be punishment rather than preventing disruption.  However, Balolay, if you do any more edit-warring, I wouldn't hesitate to block without warning.  Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this has now happened &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Balolay (Result: already blocked)
The user has been trying everything possible to get an image pertaining to the importance of photography in ending slavery removed from the lead, possibly due its connections with Arab slave trade, which seems to be against the user's worldview. Balolay (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/886290571
 * 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/886319864
 * 3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/886321647
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/886321405
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments:
 * The user has made similar edits on other articles as well removing content which doesn't suit his / her taste. Balolay (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor is adding images randomly into articles leads while we are disscussing this issue in the Slavery article he never agreed to take any disscussion into the talk page

   Here I tried solving this issue by moving it down to the section where it seems to belong and yet I got reverted here here and even after he did this fake report he reverted he was warned and reported 2 days ago of editwarring here by yet he still edit warring--SharabSalam (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dealt with in report above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:TheroneCI reported by User:Gab4gab (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article has a long unsourced history section. I trimmed it back to a couple sentences after which TheroneCI reverted my change. All reverts were done without explanation. Attempts at discussion on both the user and article talk page have produced no response. Unable to engage TheroneCI in discussion I bring the issue here. Gab4gab (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, I removed the material that has been reinserting as plagiarism because it appears to be directly taken from the staff handbook  Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have left a final warning and will block if edit warring continues &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Sc wikinevis reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Awards */"
 * 2)  "/* Date of performances */"
 * 3)  "/* Date of performances */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 886257697 by Tony1 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 886005662 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 886007740 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 886005767 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 884824643 by Tony1 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886005767 by Dl2000 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 884824643 by Tony1 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Matryoshka (play). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Reverting to their own personal version, in breach of the MOS—something that I rarely care about, but in this case is so obviously damaging that even I can't ignore it—to a far worse, overlinked version. Note the same edit war took place "Last Sunday" too but went unnoticed at the time. —— SerialNumber  54129  19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thesee messages were sent to these users and I believe the complain really was not necessary:


 * Unnecessary Edit

Hello,

Please don't change the way dates of performances were written for this way is correct and don't need to be edited. Please don't delete the codes about the language of the sources were mentioned in the article. I was correcting the article and I'll later edit those parts (codes) by adding the info and also the abbreviation of the language of the sources, so it can be clear for the readers. I just didn't have time to take care of them. Those are not junks.

Thank you

Best,

Sc wikinevis (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary Edit

Hello,

Please don't change the way dates of performances were written for this way is correct and don't need to be edited. Please don't delete the codes about the language of the sources were mentioned in the article. I was correcting the article and I'll later edit those parts (codes) by adding the info and also the abbreviation of the language of the sources, so it can be clear for the readers. I just didn't have time to take care of them. Those are not junks.

Thank you

Best,

Sc wikinevis (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your style rather conflicts with Wikipedia's own manual of style. But the important thing is that you stop repeatedly reverting other editors: contested edits—even merely stylistic ones—should be discussed on the talk page. Failure to do so is generally seen as edit-warring, which can result in sanctions. ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I'm not professional in editing and I didn't know about manual of style you sent me. I checked the Date and Time part and now I understand why you were trying to edit those parts. The problem is some users do the edit with robot; therefore, I don't have any other chose except reverting them. I even wrote them but they keep doing it. The robot does change the articles depend on what it is written in their English Language version and it changes or adds some infos to their Persian Language and makes the article poor and it damages them. You probably saw that I also thank people when I see necessary edits were done by them. Anyway thank you for the information and believe me that, however I don't have much time or I might not have good knowledge and experience about coding and wikipedia rules, but I also like you am here to make the articles look better. Especially in their Persian versions for they written poorly and I care about it because I'm Persian.

Sc wikinevis (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe the complain really was not necessary and it is better to talk to those users who are less familiar with the way the information need to be written! Also some Edits were not really necessary among general edits of some of the users; therefore, I didn't have other choice except to undo them and take care of the parts that really needed correction.

Sc wikinevis (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * or until Sc wikinevis can convince me he will not edit the article again in that time, whichever is sooner. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:112.5.241.111 (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I realized I and he are involved in an edit war. I add Khmer script in this article which is the name of "United Issarak Front" written in Khmer script, which is the native name in its native writing system. But User:Vif12vf reverts my edit fourth times with different reasons: the first time: "Keep it latin", without any reasonable reasons; and I add it again because I think "As a Cambodia group, khmer script is essential"; he revert it the second time and says: "Not on english wikipedia!"; I add again because I think it's a absolutely ridiculous logic, why Khmer script should not add on English Wikipedia? He revert it the third time and says: "While it is not wrong in itself to add Khmer to the main body of text, you must not remove anything that is already here, and it is unnecessary to add it to the infobox!". But I only add Khmer script, and have NEVER remove the Khmer romanization!!! It takes me a lot of time to find the Khmer script, but is removed by him again and again, so I'm angry with him and says his action is vandalism. And then, he reverts it the fourth time and says: "You are removing the latin-script version of the native name, and translations dont need to be sourced!" , and leave a warning message in my talk page, says "Please stop your disruptive editing". As you see, both are angry with others. It makes me confused, why he accuse me of "removed the latin-script"? I did not remove it at all, the Khmer romanization is in the main text, following the Khmer script. the Khmer script is the native script, so I think it should be in the infobox "native name". instead, he remove the Khmer script again and again; though he says "The khmer script may be added to the main body of text" in the talk page, but he continue removing Khmer script from the article. It seems that it's hard to dialogue with him. I hope a fair judgment. If he is wrong, block him please. If I'm wrong, block me, please. I don't want an edit war any more. 112.5.241.111 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have rolled the page back to the last stable version from 22 February, before the IP editor attempted the changes to the article. I strongly suggest that the discussion on the talk page continue with parties mentioning the WP:Manual of Style where it supports their respective positions. At this point, this is a simple content dispute. I do not think administrative action is needed at the article, since any such action would likely be semi-protection. —C.Fred (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I will calm down and continue the discussion to reach a compromise. BTW, it's unfair to set a disputed page "semi-protect" to prevent edit war between "extended confirmed user" and IP editor.--112.5.241.111 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lysol Swiffer reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Even if director is not in the source he is. He directs every episode of South Park, he directed the movie and team America, and Book of Mormon. He is a director"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886423492 by MarnetteD (talk) his actor role should go first since it is much larger than his animator. Everything is still the same with the execption with the addition of director."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 886415658 by Slightlymad (talk)"
 * 4)  "Parker has filed for divorce from Boogie."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Matt Stone. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Trey Parker. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * &Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:213.86.30.73 reported by User:Slightlymad (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886123155 by Slightlymad (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Persistent reverts without discussion, especially in abortion-related articles which are typically put on a WP:1RR probation. IP has already been warned by another editor for violating WP:3RR but didn't comply.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: section blanking without giving a reason is vandalism, and I am comfortable blocking for that. However a short block may go unnoticed by this editor due to their infrequent editing pattern. What do you suggest? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. This user's talk page is already spurred with warnings for vandalism/edit-warring. So I think an indef block's reasonable at this point. User's clearly not interested to contribute in a productive manner.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't block IPs indefinitely. But I have blocked for a week. Let's see what effect that has. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:174.21.131.245 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Funding */"
 * 2)  "/* Funding */"
 * 3)  "/* Funding */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sound Transit 3. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has been using multiple IPs to add unsourced information.  Sounder Bruce  06:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite at 3RR yet. Article has been semi-protected for a week. If disruption continues on other articles, then I will block &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ian D 123 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: (Black Power)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886578824 by EvergreenFir (talk) If you can call White Power racist then you can call Black Power racist, if you believe that is my opinion and therefore unfit for being on the page, then it would make sense to remove the racist addition to white power."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886559569 by Acroterion (talk)"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: (White supremacy)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886576503 by Ian D 123 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886559489 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886576503 by Ian D 123 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886559489 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886559489 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886559489 by Acroterion (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black Power. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black Power. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Been discussed plenty of times on the talk page... POV edit warring... see user's comments and edit summaries  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see White supremacy edits.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation on White supremacy. If there is a wider pattern of disruption, please refer to ANI where it can be discussed in more detail. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Better?"
 * 2)  "Typo!!"
 * 3)  "Now IS in the article body. Fight me!"
 * 4)  "PLEASE stop reverting my innocent edits! Look I'm trying to be nice with you, I said please. Don't you dare accuse me of being hostile or anything now!"
 * 5)  "Back, and I have a REAL ONLINE SOURCE TO PROVE IT. STOP REVERTING!"
 * 6)  "I'm not lying and I HAVE A SOURCE TO PROVE IT"
 * 1)  "I'm not lying and I HAVE A SOURCE TO PROVE IT"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Richard Wagner. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Not assuming good faith on User talk:1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel. (TW)"
 * 3)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on T series. (TW)"
 * 4)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Richard Wagner. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Increasingly bizarre edit-war to include extraneous material into a FA, accompanied by a somewhat random demand to fight them and also pugnacious requests to "deal with it", and not to "mess" with them. —— SerialNumber  54129  16:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Stop accusing me of edit warring. You'll regret it if you further provoke me. 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . Generally WP:NOTHERE, and threatening another editor is sufficient reason for a block. Favonian (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Nihlus (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 2)  "/* Contestants */You have to get consensus to remove it. This is someone’s work that you’re going to remove without a reason so stop it or i’m gonna report you. Also it matches with all the other presentations on wikipedia about rupaul’s drag race."
 * 3)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 4)  "/* Contestants */Rude. Don’t waste my work"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Contestant progress table */ remove"


 * Comments:

Continued edit warring after recent block. Also levied a personal attack at me recently. Nihlus 04:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked, page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No proper reason given for the removal of this sourced information and adding of other unsourced information!"
 * 2)  "It is only a violation if everything was copied directly from its source, which it doesn't seem to be! And if the text is directly copied, rewrite it instead of removing it! If you continue removing all this informaton you may get blocked for vandalism!"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 886689074 by Espanasiempre2019 (talk) (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted to revision 886522264 by Dijalbinha2019 (talk) (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

They know about edit-warring, having recently been warned by both and : In this particular case, I beieve that restoring copyvios is *not* an exemption... —— SerialNumber  54129  15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just stopped reverting the edits on this recent article and have instead re-instated some minor info that may have been wrongly removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Too late for that &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Full-protected by for 4 days. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And blocked user for persistent edit warring &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both; continuing to revert while at ANI was the breaking point, as it were. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having seen this edit, both apparently restoring a copyright violation and falsely accusing an editor of vandalism, I would have blocked too. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Hedgielamar reported by User:NekoKatsun (Result: 24 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Barry: ; Levy:

Diffs of the user's reverts at James Barry (surgeon): Diffs of the user's reverts at E. J. Levy:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:.

Comments:

This user has not engaged with anyone who's attempted to contact them, including back on Feb 24 (as seen on their talkpage). I've asked in edit summaries and on their talkpage for them to discuss with other users, but they continually insert their preferred phrasing with the summary "corrected inaccuracies" and have lately been adding a low-quality (and misspelled) source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted to User talk:Hedgielamar and will follow up with this shortly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for attempting to get things under control; however since Hedgielamar ignored your message and carried on edit-warring, a block was inevitable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm glad I tried &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much for your attention and assistance. I hope they start working with us! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * and, it appears the edit warring is now continuing under a newly created account, , whose only edits have been to repeat the same edit warring on E. J. Levy  and James Barry (surgeon)  , including reinserting the same broken link with "wwww" instead of "www". Can this be dealt with here or should I file this as a sockpuppet investigation? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The user has also now referred to those who revert the disruptive edits as "perps", the same as the blocked editor . Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the sock and extended the block of Hedgielamar &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We've got another one, ; has made almost identical changes to E. J. Levy as of this morning, including the exact same misspelling of a source URL that both Hedgielamar and JMB2019 were inserting. Not sure if this is a sock, since I thought Hedgie and I were having a somewhat-productive conversation on Hedgie's talkpage. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Enciclopiedicomutante reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: indef.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 886845973 by David Biddulph (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 886837539 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 886816321 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 886799696 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 886791553 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Protect page!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canary Islands. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit-warring as soon as protection on article expired this morning. Status quo (prior to this editors changes) agreed with source cited. David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Enciclopiedicomutante (also per WP:NOTHERE); 87.223.130.234 blocked for 48 hours. --Leyo 01:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SpaceMusk reported by User:Vacuasword (Result: blocked indef)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorilla&type=revision&diff=886899989&oldid=886797009

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_lowland_gorilla&type=revision&diff=886900626&oldid=884590078
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_sea_lion&type=revision&diff=886900067&oldid=886809718
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMeerkat&type=revision&diff=886899461&oldid=886810235
 * 4) etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komodo_dragon&type=revision&diff=886900418&oldid=886789939

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceMusk&oldid=886809354

Comments:

Absolutely wants to publish bad quality pictures. Doesn't understand. -- Vacuasword (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

it is your opinion, that those pictures are bad and again your opionion is very subjective, what makes your opinion better then mine...., did not hear an answer yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMusk (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The same goes for you; you can't edit war to preserve a picture that you feel is better. If you change a picture and others disagree, you must obtain consensus that your favored picture is the one that should be present. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing that multiple users have pointed out technical issues with the photos, issues other than "I just don't like it." Acting like they have not is just disruptive and only going to get you in trouble.  Repeatedly dismissing those technical issues as "just their opinion" and asking to hear another reason is also disruptive and not going to help you.
 * Also, multiple editors have asked you to stop trying to add those photos. It seems pretty clear that you're taking the removal of your photos personally -- don't.  No editor owns their contributions here.
 * In short: knock it off. Find a different way to contribute for now besides photos, until you learn to properly take criticism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

so you are saying i can not take critisism, i think that's an attack but ok.... SpaceMusk (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your behavior has so far demonstrated an inability to take criticism. Saying that you view that as an attack rather proves it.  You are more than welcome to change your behavior.  Trying to "win" this "fight" is only going to dig a deeper hole.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The user was blocked indef by Acroterion. BTW: Vacuasword seems to be a one-purpose account. --Leyo 22:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mk8mlby reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been extensive discussion of the content the user is disputing at Talk:Tom_Brady%23Greatest_QB_in_NFL_history

Comments:

After I warned the user about edit warring, they left a defiant message on my talk page that they were only doing what [they] think is best.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll comment that outside of the merits of this particular edit warring case, I think the article itself needs some kind of administrator attention. 1RR? Locking? I don't know. The subject of the discussion (is Brady the Greatest of All Time? Can we report that he's widely regarded as such without a cite stating specifically how widely regarded and by whom?) is one which which arouses tremendous passions, and many editors (at least a dozen, including myself) on both sides are engaging in a protracted edit war - this iteration going back a month. I suspect Bagumba being WP:INVOLVED in the edits would prevent him from being seen as a neutral party shutting this down. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly involved in this article, but that's because I hate Tom Brady and can't be neutral about him. This edit summary by, "I just don't like that". is an argument to avoid on discussion pages. I recommend an impartial admin lock it further as they choose. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, and it's clear you bent over backwards to hide that. But this is the odd case where discussion is unlikely to solve the problem and someone new needs to come in as the heavy and shut it down, one way or the other. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I should've said is that Brady is a polarizing subject and something long term is called for. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Another post at my talk page After this case was opened, Mk8mlyb posted again at my talk page: Hey, why'd you do that? Okay, I'm not innocent here, I won't deny that, but I'm just one of the guys who's getting drawn up in this, and I'm the one who's taking the brunt of all this? I'll meet you at the other talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , should the other editor be reported? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mk8mlyb is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have previously received a consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:90.43.10.244 reported by User:Vauxford (Result: Blocked for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

IP 90.43.10.244 has been constantly edit warring on the BMW 3 Series article by replacing the infobox image despite the fact we already reached a consensus of what image to use on the infobox and is getting out of control. They already been warned for their behaviour. The motive as they stated: "As anonymous wiki user,i won't let this unacceptable image represent the BMW E36" --Vauxford (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I support a block for the IP, Vauxford needs to be advised that their handling of the situation was wrong. I tried doing that when they posted at AN, but they appeared not to accept what I said. When both sides are in the wrong, both sides need to be addressed; not just one who was more in the wrong. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I simply fumbled up with the report, technically I did not edit warring as the diffs you showed me are about 2 weeks apart and I done no more then 3 today which I then stopped and tried to get assistant, I could of address this problem better in the future but I personally don't think I'm in the wrong here as well. --Vauxford (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See the very first sentence at Edit warring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." It says nothing about the amount of time between the reverts. The essential point is that it was a single dispute over a single bit of content, the infobox image. So yes, you were a participant in the edit war, and there is no "good" edit warring. You have now reverted six times in that dispute, and one should have been your limit. Dispute resolution describes how to handle content disputes and I don't see your actions described there. I am not suggesting a block in your case, but I would if you acted in the same manner in a future dispute. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Goodness cut me some slacks... Whatever happened to the three-revert rule? They are within more than 24 hours, you're taking this far out of proportion just because I made some mistake, if what your saying is the case then you should inform others who been reverting this user's edits as well. --Vauxford (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Longer than normal block duration set as the editor stated they would continue using an IP account to edit war. A SPA registered account like this would be blocked for an indefinite period. I don't see anything particularly problematic with Vauxford's conduct, especially given the unpleasant way the IP editor has chosen to conduct themselves - which included making the above threat in the attempt to discuss this matter. This report was malformed though - please fill in all the standard fields in the future. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)